history as an area of knowledge strives to attain objectivity as that is the only way true

production of knowledge can be attained. but this statement fails to acknowledge that history
as opposed to art is evidenced based and the sources selected with dictate the knowledge
produced. while objectivity is the fidelity upon which the tapestry of historical knowledge is
founded, subjectivity does form part of the process of understanding the various nuances. for
example according to xxx, the issues of the cause of the world war ii is debatable as various
interpretations inspire different outcomes. xxx give the impression that xxx is responsible for
the start of the war. the narrative is disputed by zzz whose information is supported by a
documented released by the nari top organ that gives a detailed plan on its lebensraum policy.
an evaluation of these two sources leads to the conclusion that world war ii that both
historians seem to have relayed on secondary sources as the latest information from
prominent historian ernest lee shows that the case of the war was the result of multiple
factors, demystifying the believe that it was the result of a single agent.

historian yyy states that the problem with historian is that there is no clear cut of the
representation of any historical event. he cites the example of who really started the cold war.
this i date has never really been agreed upon. therefore, historical knowledge according to
yyy is more of personal opinion that what actually transpired on any historical phenomena. he
states that since the selection of sources can vary from one historian to another. no two
historians can therefore have a common understanding. but aaa, an eminent historian refutes
this and states that the pluralistic approach to a historian phenomena gives scholars a chance
to evaluate history and get understanding from different perspectives. therefore, condemning
history because it lacks absolute truth is unfair.